Nature Of Relationship Between The 64-Year-Old Man And The 22-Year-Old Man Was Consensual: Gujarat HC Grants Bail In Section 377 IPC Case

The applicant had assisted the complainant during financial difficulties amounting to Rs 10 lakh, and after requesting repayment, the complainant retaliated. The applicant's plea argued that due to the significant age difference, the complainant, being much older, was in a position to manipulate the younger individual.

The FIR against the applicant included allegations under IPC Sections 377 (Unnatural Offences), 386 (Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt), and 389 (Extortion by fear of accusation).

A Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, referenced the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalized consensual same-sex relationships, and said, “Prima facie, it appears that a consensual relationship was going on between the applicant and the complainant. The present applicant is only 22 years old and has no past antecedents. (5) So far as Section 377 of the IPC is concerned, it was decriminalized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India, reported in 2018 (10) SCC 1.”

Advocate Sneh R Purohit appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Asmita Patel appeared for the Respondent.

The Court observed that the investigation was complete, a charge-sheet had been filed, and there was no risk of the applicant fleeing or tampering with evidence. It reiterated that several factors must be considered when granting bail, including the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, and the potential for witness tampering.

In light of these considerations, the Court concluded that this case warranted bail, stating, "In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail."

Regarding the allegations under Section 386, the Court noted a lack of evidence to suggest that the applicant had caused any grievous harm or extorted money from the complainant. It emphasized that its observations in the bail order were preliminary and should not influence the trial court's decisions regarding the case's evidence.

Cause Title: Dev Jigneshbhai Buddhdev v. State of Gujarat

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Sneh R Purohit, Vishal D. Davda